HB 59 - CLEANUP OF ILLEGAL DRUG SITES
[Contains discussion of CSSB 9(STA).]
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 59, "An Act relating to the evaluation and
cleanup of sites where certain controlled substances may have
been manufactured or stored; and providing for an effective
date."
CHAIR McGUIRE informed the committee that each member should
have a new fiscal note for HB 59 from the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC).
Number 1209
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 59, Version 23-LS0341\D, Lauterbach,
2/18/03, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version D
was before the committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:27 p.m. to 1:28 p.m.
Number 1268
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM, testifying as the sponsor of HB 59, began
by informing the committee that this legislation originated from
a request by the Fairbanks North Star Borough emergency services
coordinator. He noted that last year there was similar
legislation in the Senate. He explained that current law has no
provision for a requirement by the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) to expect the cleanup of methamphetamine
laboratories. The idea is to clean up illegal drug sites so
that properties that have been rented or leased and used for
methamphetamine laboratories aren't re-rented and leased without
proper cleanup.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM explained the changes encompassed in Version
D. He directed attention to page 5, line 9, of HB 59, and
pointed out that Version D does not include the language, "the
capacity to perform the testing procedures". That language was
deleted per the request of the DEC. He then turned to page 6,
line 1, and said that the language, "the owner submits
satisfactory evidence to the department that" was changed in
Version D so that it now reads, "the owner certifies to the
department under penalty of unsworn falsification". He
indicated that this penalty changes the liability for cleanup
from the DEC to the owner of the property.
CHAIR McGUIRE closed public testimony on HB 59.
Number 1515
REPRESENTATIVE GARA posited that HB 59 seems to properly set
forth standards for cleanup of methamphetamine laboratory sites.
However, he expressed the need to be sure that there really are
methamphetamine laboratories being transferred to new tenants
without first being cleaned up so as not to cause a danger to
people. He asked if there was evidence that would support that
this danger really exists.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM provided the following three examples. A
cabin at Arctic Lake was being used as a methamphetamine
laboratory, and although the police dismantled it, there was no
mechanism by which the state could require the owner of the
property to clean it up and ensure that it was safe for
habitation. Thus, because the DEC can't be required to check
the property, the potential danger for the next occupant is
significantly dangerous. Additionally, there was a motel room
in which a methamphetamine laboratory was created.
Representative Holm relayed his understanding that it's very
easy to air out and clean out a property while still not
removing the affected carpet or baseboard. Without proper
cleaning to ensure a location is habitable, there is the
potential for dangerous drugs to affect the brains of children
[who may be at the property at a later time]. Also, there was a
methamphetamine laboratory found in a corner of the Aspen Hotel
in Fairbanks.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if there is any information available
that would address the extent of any existing danger to the
public under today's absence of a law.
CHAIR McGUIRE pointed out that the committee packet should
include an article entitled, "IS THERE A METH LAB COOKIN' IN
YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD?" This article discusses the potential health
impacts from exposure to methamphetamine laboratory
contaminants, such as nausea, skin and eye irritation,
headaches, respiratory problems, et cetera. She stressed that
[methamphetamine] is a known carcinogenic. She relayed that the
article also discusses some of the items that could indicate the
existence of a methamphetamine laboratory. Chair McGuire
pointed out that the committee packet should also include an
article from the Fairbanks Daily News Miner, which discusses
some of the specific incidents.
Number 1798
JOS GOVAARS, Staff to Representative Jim Holm, Alaska State
Legislature, referred to the article [entitled, "IS THERE A METH
LAB COOKIN' IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD?"] which he found on the
Internet. [That article relayed] that the potential health
hazards from the chemicals in methamphetamines are dependent
upon the length of time one has been exposed to [those] hazards,
as well as the size of the methamphetamine laboratory. The
small laboratories that fit in the trunk of a car don't pose as
serious a health hazard as would a methamphetamine laboratory
the size of the committee room. Contaminants can soak into
furniture, carpets, draperies, and even sheetrock and ceiling
tile. Furthermore, some of the chemicals can lay dormant
because some are heavier than air and thus can end up in a
basement or the crawl space of a house. Mr. Govaars said that
[the existence of methamphetamine laboratories] is a serious
problem that needs to be addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that it's clear that the chemicals are
dangerous substances. He asked whether there is any evidence
that people are transferring potentially dangerous homes to new
tenants/buyers. He again expressed the need to be sure that the
aforementioned is an existing problem.
MR. GOVAARS said that he has heard stories from people in
Fairbanks in which homes that were once methamphetamine
laboratories are reinhabited by other people [with no cleanup
taking place]. Furthermore, two hotels in Fairbanks have had
methamphetamine laboratories this year. He said he questions
how many people may be exposed to methamphetamine chemicals left
behind in a hotel room after a methamphetamine laboratory is
dismantled.
Number 1926
CHAIR McGUIRE acknowledged Representative Gara's concern and
also asked whether there is evidence that methamphetamine
laboratory sites aren't being cleaned before being [made
available for habitation].
MR. GOVAARS answered that he doesn't have any documentation.
Currently, there is no statute specifying the tracking of
methamphetamine laboratory locations; this legislation would
establish standards so that methamphetamine laboratories can be
tracked and cleaned up. This is a good first step, he said.
Number 1990
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 5, lines 8-10, of HB
59, and pointed out that the language, "that have the capacity
to perform the testing procedures and" wasn't included in
Version D. He relayed his understanding that because the
requirement that the department determine whether a laboratory
has the capacity [to perform testing procedures] would engender
a fiscal note, the department wanted to eliminate that
requirement. He recommended that in the notification process,
laboratories should not only state that they want to be on the
list but also that they have the capacity to perform the test.
He characterized the aforementioned as a reasonable requirement
that doesn't cost anything. He asked if there is any problem
with adding language such that Version D, page 5, lines 8-10,
would read as follows: "The department shall establish and
maintain a list of laboratories in the state that have notified
the department that [they] have the capacity to perform the
testing procedures and that they wish to be on the list
maintained under this subsection".
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM responded that he didn't have any problem
with the aforementioned. However, he said that he didn't
believe a laboratory would want to be on the list unless it was
going to provide the service and thus [capacity to perform]
wouldn't need to be specified.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he could foresee laboratories
wanting to be on the list without having the capacity [to
perform the test]. If a laboratory is required to specify that
it has the capacity [to perform the test], then it will be on
the record that they do have the capacity.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that he didn't have a problem with
[that language].
Number 2123
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON, also, expressed interest in knowing the
number of individuals that have been harmed in these situations.
He said he views this legislation as preemptive in that respect.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM agreed that this legislation is preemptive.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said he likes the legislation, and noted
that he generally supports anything that is related to public
safety and is prudent. He informed the committee that Senator
Gretchen Guess has [similar] legislation [SB 9], although [there
are a few differences]. One of the differences is that [SB]
seeks the name and mailing address of any lienholder of record
for the property where the site is located. Furthermore, under
the standards for determining fitness, [SB 9] lists more
substances than does HB 59.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said although he hadn't really reviewed [SB
9], one of the differences is related to the need to maintain a
minimum of bureaucracy. Representative Holm said, "The other
portion of it where it wasn't the same has to do with the fact
that we don't think it's necessary ... because Section 46.03.530
... (b) is implied in the bill." He explained that the problem,
if one requires a title search to find the owner of record, is
that it adds a burden to the department; he remarked that he
didn't believe this was necessary. Therefore, HB 59 merely
refers to certification of the owner.
Number 2258
REPRESENTATIVE GARA pointed out that although the legislature is
under pressure not to increase the budget, HB 59 is accompanied
by a fiscal note. He expressed concern that the funds going to
this program will have to come from some other program. He
opined that the committee needs to be able to assess the risks
that are [supposedly] being avoided by adopting this
legislation, and measure those against the risks created by
underfunding another program. He suggested that one way to
obviate his concern would be to make HB 59 contingent upon the
receipt of adequate legislative funding. Such a contingency
would provide him comfort that the protection afforded by HB 59
is not coming at the expense of another protection that might be
more important to people. Representative Gara maintained that
he wanted to know the real risks with regard to whether people
will be harmed without HB 59. However, he did note that he
might be leaning in favor of the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS stated his belief that the individual
running the methamphetamine laboratory, not the landlord, should
be responsible for cleaning the site and paying for the DEC's
[testing costs].
Number 2371
MR. GOVAARS informed the committee that he has spoken about that
issue with Legislative Legal and Research Services, and the
concern expressed is that there is criminal and civil law being
mingled. However, the issue is being reviewed in order to
develop a [mechanism] for reimbursement. Mr. Govaars pointed
out that the fiscal note in members' packets is for HB 59, not
[Version D].
TAPE 03-8, SIDE B
MR. GOVAARS indicated that the fiscal note for [Version D]
should be significantly less than for the original legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM, in further response to Representative
Samuels's comments, mentioned that [the issue of who pays for
the cleanup and testing] would be a civil matter between the
[perpetrator] and the landlord. He explained that he approached
this matter as a state function in which society should demand
that it is taken care of prior to the time unknowing citizens
are subjected [to the hazards of methamphetamine laboratories].
Number 2334
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed his belief that this is
definitely an area in which the perpetrator should be ordered to
make restitution. However, half of the time the perpetrator
will have absconded, have hidden his/her assets, or have no
money. Still, he said that he understood that Representative
Holm's desire is to cleanup these sites fast.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM agreed and clarified that he is more
concerned about protecting [society] rather than who pays the
bill. If one chooses to rent property, the landlord is subject
to those leasing and renting the property. However, he noted
that if someone breaks into property, then it's a different
issue.
CHAIR McGUIRE relayed her sense that this is veering dangerously
close to the collateral source rule.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that he didn't know whether
insurance generally covers this sort of act by a tenant. He
suggested that someone may want to review this matter and make
sure that insurance covers this when possible.
Number 2220
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG informed the committee that there were
some amendments made to [SB 9] that this committee might want to
review. On page 3, lines 9-10, the following paragraph was
added: "(4) the name and mailing address of any lienholder of
record for the property where the site is located". On page 5,
lines 22-24, the following items were added: "iodine, sodium
hydroxide, red phosphorus, lithium metal, sodium metal, or
another substance for which the department has set a limit under
(b) of this section". And the following text was added to
proposed Sec. 46.03.530(b), beginning on page 5, line 27:
The department shall also determine whether there are
other substances associated with illegal drug
manufacturing sites that may pose a substantial risk
of physical harm to persons or animals that enter or
occupy the site and shall adopt regulations that set
limits for those substances for purposes of
determining whether the property for which notice was
received under AS 46.03.500 is fit for use.
MR. GOVAARS pointed out that a difference between CSSB 9(STA)
and HB 59 is related to the fitness for use, which can be found
on page 6, line 10 [of CSSB 9(STA)]. Basically, [under CSSB
9(STA)], the owner submits satisfactory evidence to the
department that the site is clean. However, there was concern
that if the lienholder was included there would have to be a
title search.
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that the fiscal note in members' packets
from the Division of Spill Prevention & Response is for HB 59,
not Version D. She requested testimony regarding whether the
changes [incorporated in Version D] would have any fiscal
change.
Number 2101
LARRY DIETRICK, Acting Director, Division of Spill Prevention &
Response, Department of Environmental Conservation, noted that
[the division] has worked with the sponsor on the changes
incorporated in Version D. The changes on page 5, line 9, and
page 6, line 1, were both changes [the division] felt were
necessary for the department to be able to reduce the fiscal
note and [the division's] role. The intent was to make the bill
self-implementing in order to protect public health without
developing a new government service that would add a large
fiscal note. Upon preliminary review, he said that the
aforementioned changes encompassed in Version D are acceptable
to the department. With regard to laboratory certification, Mr.
Dietrick said that laboratory certification is quite costly. He
said that according to his interpretation of [Version D], the
laboratories with the analytical capability to provide the
services specified in the legislation would simply notify the
division and the laboratory would then be placed on the list.
MR. DIETRICK turned to the deletion of the language "the owner
submits satisfactory evidence to the department". The deletion
of that language clarifies that the department won't review the
work and the cleanup, but rather the owner will do so. Both of
the changes incorporated in Version D ratchet the division's
role down to what the division believes to be an appropriate
role from a fiscal standpoint while still achieving the
sponsor's goal of protecting public health by having the
division establish the standards. The standards would include
the appropriate cleanup standard for each parameter identified
in the legislation. Furthermore, the division would develop the
guidelines for sampling the property and the analytical methods
that the laboratory would use to perform the analysis of the
samples. The division would also develop guidelines for cleanup
based on a variety of laboratory situations, from a simple
suitcase-type laboratory, to a large, complex laboratory with
ventilation systems.
MR. DIETRICK said that by providing a set of guidelines and
standards for a range of conditions, the hope would be that the
property owner could use the standards to determine what to do
and whether help is necessary and who is available to conduct
the analytical work. The aforementioned measures leave the
division out of an oversight role and the unsworn falsification
is an additional incentive for the property owner to perform
cleanup correctly. Therefore, the division's role is to set the
standards, maintain the laboratory list, de-list properties that
have cleaned up, and adopt the guidelines [via regulation].
[Version D] substantially shrinks the division's role in terms
of review and approval and, thus, the fiscal note will be
changed accordingly. He estimated that the fiscal note would
probably be cut in half, adding that the initial cost of setting
the standards will make the initial costs higher, and that the
out-year costs will depend upon the number of new chemicals that
are discovered in the future.
Number 1831
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed his understanding that [a version
of] SB 9, the companion to HB 59, passed the House last year.
He asked Mr. Dietrick if he would know the differences between
the two bills.
MR. DIETRICK answered that [the department] has worked with the
sponsor of SB 9 this year. The two areas of concern [for the
division] are the same areas that were addressed by the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA turned to the scaled-back role of the DEC
and inquired as to what mandates enforcement of this so as to
ensure cleanup is done by the guidelines.
MR. DIETRICK answered that [HB 59] makes it very clear who is
responsible - the property owner. With the self-certification
method being subject to a penalty, Mr. Dietrick said he felt
that there is a fairly decent incentive for a property owner to
do the correct thing. He noted that the capacity in this state
to perform this kind of cleanup is available. With all the
aforementioned and a good set of standards and guidelines, Mr.
Dietrick said he believes this goes a long way to accomplish the
goal. However, he did acknowledge that there may a need to
revisit this and create a more sophisticated cleanup procedure
and tighter controls to increase confidence [that cleanup is
achieved]. He characterized [Version D] as a good start.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that he was the author of the
asbestos legislation. He asked if there would be similar health
risks to the people involved in cleanup of methamphetamine
laboratories.
MR. DIETRICK said that he wasn't sure he would qualify as a
health expert on the effects.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed the need to review the
aforementioned.
MR. DIETRICK pointed out that the knowledge of the types of
chemicals and levels of concentrations and their impact on
health are just coming to light.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG informed the committee that [health]
problems [related to asbestos] occurred for years and led to
tremendous tort exposure. He asked if [this legislation] is
going to expose a group of laboratory technicians or workers to
some significant health risks.
MR. DIETRICK highlighted that one of the items for which [the
department] will set standards will be for the decontamination
guidelines, including the personal protection requirements.
Within those [personal protection requirements], what one has to
do for protection of the cleanup crew should be included. In
further response to Representative Gruenberg, Mr. Dietrick said
he envisions that the decontamination guidelines and training
would go hand in hand.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that on page 5, line 21, of
[CSSB 9(STA)], the contaminant mercury is listed. Mercury is
terrifically contaminating, he remarked, and thus is of great
concern.
Number 1460
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM explained that he introduced HB 59 because
of the children who could possibly be exposed to these toxins.
MR. DIETRICK reiterated that he isn't a health expert. However,
he explained that normally, numerical standards could be
established such that certain situations would be covered. A
risk-based approach could also be used. The risk-based approach
takes into consideration the nature of the operation, the levels
of concentrations, and the types of individuals who would be
exposed. The aforementioned is done on an individual basis. He
noted that generally, healthy male adults can sustain higher
dosages of contaminants than can more sensitive populations such
as infants. Since one number wouldn't suffice in all cases, the
numerical standard would be more conservative. Mr. Dietrick
said that the standards established would probably be based on a
child's dosage. Mr. Dietrick explained that [the DEC] will
write a request for proposals (RFP) to have the standards
created [by] one of Alaska's consultants who will review the
literature and the standards of other states. He mentioned that
Washington, Oregon, and Missouri have established some standards
and numbers.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 5, line 26,
of [Version D], which in part reads: "The department shall
establish guidelines for decontamination of sites". He
expressed the need to be sure that the language includes
training and protection of the workers.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM remarked that he believes [the discussion]
to be moving a bit away from the thrust of the legislation. The
thrust of HB 59 is to protect young people. He acknowledged
that protections for workers and others could be included,
although he characterized that as muddying the bill. He related
his desire to move HB 59 along.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that he would be offering an amendment
to address the concerns of Representative Gruenberg. He offered
his belief that if the aim of this legislation is to protect
people rather than harm them, people could be placed in harm's
way by telling these individuals what to remove without also
specifying how they should protect themselves.
Number 1131
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 5, line 9:
Between "that" and "they"
Insert "they have the capacity to perform the
testing requirement and that"
CHAIR McGUIRE objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON asked if the sponsor viewed Amendment 1
as a friendly amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that there is a misprint in
Amendment 1; instead, it should read:
Page 5, line 9:
Between "that" and "they"
Insert "they have the capacity to perform the
testing procedure and that"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked whether the changes encompassed in
Amendment 1 [as amended] would have any ramifications for the
DEC.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 1 [as amended]
says that the proposed laboratory must state in its notice [to
the DEC] that they want to perform the testing and also that
they have the capacity to do so. He said he didn't intend to
add any expense to [the department].
MR. DIETRICK said that [the department] agrees with the intent
of having the laboratories "self-represent" their capability [to
perform testing]. Mr. Dietrick noted that the Department of Law
reviewed this. He said:
It would appear that if they have the capacity to
perform the testing procedures, if that is preceded by
the list of laboratories in the state [that] have
notified the department they have the capacity, if
this meets that self-certifying intent, then we agree
conceptually with that.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that he no objection to Amendment 1.
CHAIR McGUIRE removed her objection. Noting that there were no
further objections, Amendment 1 [as amended] was adopted.
Number 0926
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which,
on page 5, line 26, after "guidelines", would add "including
guidelines to protect the health and safety of those removing
the controlled substances,".
CHAIR McGUIRE objected for discussion purposes.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:30 p.m. to 2:35 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that the DEC has relayed its
intent to include guidelines related to health and safety; thus
his understanding is that Amendment 2 wouldn't add to the fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he had no problem with Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that he would like to be known as
a co-sponsor of Amendment 2.
CHAIR McGUIRE removed her objection. Noting that there were no
further objections, she announced that Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 0752
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 5, lines 22-
24, of [CSSB 9(STA)] and requested that the following language
be added: "iodine, sodium hydroxide, red phosphorus, lithium
metal, sodium metal, or another substance for which the
department has set a limit under (b) of this section". He asked
[Mr. Dietrick] to comment.
MR. DIETRICK said that he hasn't had any discussion with
[Senator Guess], although he understood that there is
potentially a wide range of chemicals associated with the
[methamphetamine] laboratories. He pointed out that the
legislation includes a provision allowing those chemicals
discovered at a later time to be added.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG highlighted that the most important
language is "another substance for which the department has set
a limit under (b) of this section." The aforementioned language
is not currently included in [Version D]. Representative
Gruenberg said that this seems to be important language as it
provides the department with an important authority.
MR. DIETRICK relayed his belief that the department's authority
to add other substances already exists, since the DEC could add
another substance via regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM indicated that the aforementioned language
appears to be unnecessary.
Number 0509
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG informed the committee that Title 17
includes a list of controlled substances - narcotics. Every
time someone wants to add another controlled substance to the
list of illegal drugs, an amendment is required by the
legislature. However, this legislation allows the department to
add another compound via regulation and, thus, avoid returning
to the legislature each time.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM pointed out that on page 5, line 6, of
[Version D], the language specifies that, "The department shall
establish procedures for testing property that may have been an
illegal drug manufacturing site". He highlighted that the
language doesn't refer to a specific illegal drug, it merely
says, "illegal drug". Therefore, he surmised, if a drug is
later determined to be illegal, it would fall under the
aforementioned language.
CHAIR McGUIRE relayed her belief that it wouldn't hurt to
provide a broad grant of authority via language specifying such.
The debate, she remarked, is in regard to how many substances to
list at the moment.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM inquired as to the language that would be
used. He said that he wasn't opposed to a laundry list, as was
suggested, although it isn't inclusive and doesn't have future
inclusiveness. Therefore, he indicated that it may be best not
to mention any specific drugs, chemicals, or volatiles.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the language to which
Representative Holm referred earlier on page 5, line 6, of
[Version D], refers to procedures for testing. However, the
section [to which he is referring] addresses property not fit
for use. Representative Gruenberg offered that the following
language could be used, "if sampling and testing of the property
under 46.03.520 shows the presence of a substance that for which
the department has set a limit under (b) of this section", and
then not put anything [under standards for fitness] section.
MR. DIETRICK clarified that currently, [Version D] identifies
four compounds for which the property is unfit if the standards
are exceeded. He directed attention to page 6; proposed Sec.
46.03.570(b) of [Version D] is the mechanism for adding or
subtracting from the current list of four compounds. Therefore,
he surmised that the question is whether the four contaminants
listed are the correct core group to characterize the
contamination resulting from the type of drug laboratories
encountered in Alaska. Mr. Dietrick said he couldn't speak to
the aforementioned because of the lack of data.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interjected, stating his belief that at
the very least, the phrase, "or another substance for which the
department has set a limit under (b) of this section", should be
added. He clarified that this language should be added under
proposed Sec. 46.03.530(a), on page 5 of [Version D].
Representative Gruenberg acknowledged Representative Holm's
earlier statement that if the broad authority is being given,
then additional language isn't necessary. To that end,
Representative Gruenberg said that all the language [referring
to specific contaminants] could be eliminated and then the bill
would simply refer to "a substance for which the department has
set a limit under (b) of this section". However, he surmised
from Mr. Dietrick's comments that it would be helpful [to the
department] to have those four substances included. Therefore,
he inquired as to whether Mr. Dietrick wanted there to be a list
of substances and if so, how many would he recommend.
Number 0056
CHAIR McGUIRE stated that she understood not wanting a laundry
list [of substances], but what she liked was the latter part of
Representative Gruenberg's amendment: "or another substance for
which the department has set a limit under (b) of this section".
Chair McGuire said she didn't know that she would eliminate the
list of four substances, since those have been identified as
core elements present [in a methamphetamine laboratory].
TAPE 03-9, SIDE A
Number 0008
CHAIR McGUIRE suggested the following language: "or another
substance for which the department has set a limit under (b) of
this section".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his suggestion, which he, at
that point, called Amendment 3, and, after discussion, made a
motion to adopt the following as new Amendment 3:
Page 5, line 17:
Delete "and"
Page 5, line 18, after "compounds":
Delete "."
Insert "and another substance for which the department
has set a limit under (b) of this section."
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that there were no objections to new
Amendment 3. Therefore, Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 0282
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to [CSSB 9(STA)], page 5, line
27, through page 6, line 1, which read:
The department shall also determine whether there are
other substances associated with illegal drug
manufacturing sites that may pose a substantial risk
of physical harm to persons or animals that enter or
occupy the site and shall adopt regulations that set
limits for those substances for purposes of
determining whether the property for which notice was
received under AS 46.03.500 is fit for use.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the aforementioned language
would be a helpful addition to [Version D of HB 59]. He
stressed that he didn't want to add any money to the fiscal
note.
MR. DIETRICK specified that what would impact the fiscal note
would be when a new contaminant arrives and necessitates
establishing new standards, cleaning guidelines, analytical
methods, and sampling protocols. The current language of
[Version D] would necessitate preparation of initial standards
for the compounds listed, he remarked, noting that additional
contaminants would be added if and when they are identified as a
chemical of concern associated with a drug laboratory.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised, then, that the aforementioned
language from CSSB 9(STA) wouldn't add a fiscal note because it
isn't contaminant specific. Therefore, he again asked if it
would be helpful to have that language in Version D.
MR. DIETRICK remarked that although the language itself wouldn't
trigger a fiscal note, the addition of a new contaminant would.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:55 p.m. to 2:58 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would offer the aforementioned
language [from CSSB 9(STA)] as an amendment to Version D if [the
sponsor] would like to add it.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that adding that language would take
the legislation on a different path, which he didn't want to
travel.
Number 0495
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 59, Version 23-LS0341\D, Lauterbach,
2/18/03, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the committee wanted to
wait for a new fiscal note for the new CS.
Number 0535
CHAIR McGUIRE, after stating that the new fiscal note from the
DEC would be forthcoming, and hearing no objections to the
motion, announced that CSHB 59(JUD) was reported from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.